liti>ORT OP tllE BOTAXICAL EXCHANGE CLO'IJ. 275 



Cochlearia anglica, Linn. " A further series from the neighbour- 

 hood of Plymouth, which seem to support the view that C. anglica is 

 connected by intermediates with C. officinalis, hinted at in the last 

 Club Eeport. The matter is hard to investigate owing to the plant 

 losing the earlier and characteristic root-leaves before the pods attain 

 their full size. Thus it becomes difl3.cult to note what correlation 

 exists between the shape of the root-leaves and that of the pods. I 

 believe C. anglicd to be perennial, and to be propagated to some extent 

 by the younger leaf-bearing portions of the branched root-stock break- 

 ing away from the older, and in this way forming separate plants in 

 the soft mud. I suspect the leaves of such offset plants to differ con- 

 siderably from those of plants immediately derived from seed." — T. R. 

 A. B. There can be no question that Mr. Briggs's specimens connect C. 

 anglica with C. officinalis, so much so that in several instances, look- 

 ing at the dried plant, I feel at a loss which name ought to be applied. 

 The best time for examining the root-leaves is in late autumn, say 

 September or October. There is, I suppose, no doubt that both 

 typical anglica and typical officinalis occur in the neighbourhood of 

 Plymouth. Can it be that these two hybridise ? By the estuary of 

 the Thames C. anglica is common, chiefly, if not entirely, the form 

 named var. gemina, in which the root-leaves are gradually narrowed 

 into the petioles, and the pod large, oval-obovate, and much con- 

 stricted on the outer side over the replum. C. offici^ialis I have never 

 seen in the Thames estuary. In the " Flora of Essex " it is reported from 

 the sea-shore at Wakering, which is entirely beyond the Thames 

 estuary ; and Mr. H. C. Watson has seen a specimen from West Kent, 

 collected by " Taylor," which must be from the Thames estuary ; and 

 Mr. Watson also records it from West Kent on the authority of Smith's 

 Catalogue, but this may be quite out of the Thames estuary. We 

 find, therefore, C. officinalis very scarce in a district where C. anglica 

 is abundant ; and here, out of thousands of specimens of C. anglica, 

 I have never seen any which approached C. officinalis as Mr. 

 Briggs's specimens do. Again, in the East of Scotland, C. officinalis 

 is abundant. Two forms of this occur, one with large, mostly sub- 

 globular pods, the other with smaller pods which are often ovoid. 

 This last form appears to me the same as the form that occurs in 

 alpine districts, and is entered in the "London Catalogue" as var. alpina. 

 To this small-fruited form of C. officinalis belong, I suspect, all the 

 plants recorded as C. danica from Scotland, and some which I have 

 received from England under that name. Genuine C. danica has the 

 petals about half the size of those of C. officinalis, only slightly ex- 

 ceeding the sepals and oblong-oblanceolate in form, while in G. officinalis 

 they are considerably longer than the sepals ^and spathulate-obovate. 

 In the east coast of Scotland C. anglica is not known to occur. It is 

 entered in " Topographical Botany ' in the counties of Edinburgh and 

 Elgin, but with a query after each county name. We have thus in 

 the east coast of Scotland a district in wliich C. officinalis is abundant 

 and C. anglica very rare, if present at all ; and out of thousands of 

 specimens of C. officinalis I have never seen one showing the least ap- 

 proach towards C. anglica. All we can say at present is — first, that in 

 a district where C. anglica occurs unaccompanied by C. officinalis, the 

 former sho.vs no tendency to approach the latter ; secondly, that in a 



T 2 



